On the scale of likelihood for the Green Bay Packers, signing free agent Khalil Mack must rank infinitely higher than trading for Myles Garrett — even if both moves make good sense and have precedent with the franchise and Packers general manager Brian Gutekunst.
The most important reason is also the most obvious: Mack will be a free agent, while Garrett is under contract with the Cleveland Browns. Executing a new contract — even a large one for a player who turns 34 this month — is so much easier logistically than trading multiple draft picks and/or players for one of the generational talents currently in the National Football League.
At this point, we don’t even know if the Browns will entertain Garrett’s trade request. Cleveland is in a dire salary cap situation, and trading away Garrett would only complicate — not help — the problem. Players have more and more power in the NFL, but it’s still difficult to envision the Browns further torpedoing their franchise’s financial situation by trading away one of the best pass-rushers in a generation.
Mack’s contract with the Los Angeles Chargers expires at the start of the new league year, and he’ll be an unrestricted free agent who can sign with any team without an entry cost.
Speaking of cost, the team trading for Garrett will almost certainly have to negotiate a new deal for the six-time All-Pro. And it’s safe to assume any deal would be market-resetting at the edge rusher position and maybe among all defensive players in history.
Signing Mack costs nothing more than salary cap space. Trading for Garrett costs draft picks, the young players and cheap contracts associated with draft picks and salary cap space.
Both players are still excellent pass-rushers, although to different degrees. Garrett is in a class of his own — he’s a modern day Reggie White. Mack is now a tier below, but he still produced 140 total pressures over the last two seasons, per PFF. Garrett is maybe one of the best 4-5 players in football, while Mack safely fits within the top 50.
Mack turns 34 this month. Garrett doesn’t turn 30 until December.
So, what’s the precedent here?
In 2018, the Packers were serious bidders in the Mack sweepstakes but lost out to the Chicago Bears. That was Gutekunst’s first year running the show. He’s not afraid to take a big swing if he deems the player worthy of the trade package. Garrett qualifies. And Gutekunst was on staff when Ted Thompson and the Packers pulled the trigger on signing Julius Peppers, who was going into his age-34 season when Green Bay shocked everyone and signed him to a three-year deal in 2014. Signing an older player isn’t the Packers’ preference, but the team will do it for unique players. Mack qualifies.
If the Packers are serious about adding a veteran edge rusher this offseason, trading for Garrett or signing Mack will be legitimate discussions inside Lambeau Field. Game-changing players aren’t available often, especially at a premium position like edge rusher, and the Packers under Gutekunst have proven over and over again that — when cap space is available — they will spend on veteran talent to fix roster holes. So there’s no dismissing this possibility.
Still, signing Mack to what is likely a short-term deal is still far more likely than trading for Garrett, who will cost an incredible combination of draft capital, young talent and cap space. The Packers want to compete for championships and are pushing urgency in chasing the goal, especially entering Year 3 of the Jordan Love era. Trading for Garrett would be franchise-changing at a level nearing the signing of White in 1993. But signing Mack is far less challenging on multiple fronts and could be as impactful or more as the signing of Peppers in 2014.
